An Interesting Moment in the Senate

The Republicans decided to call Senate Majority Leader’s bluff and allow majority votes on the two tax cut extension plans – the Democratic plan obviously nixing a good portion of the top tier tax cuts. The Republicans do have an ace-in-the-hole with Mitch McConnel since any tax bill is technically supposed to be passed in the House first. But the Democrats want to push him to resort to that to kill the extension of middle class tax cuts.

The Republican bill just went down, with at least one Republican voting against it.

I think the vote on the Democratic bill is underway.

But the real news is that the Republicans are allowing the vote to happen – just like the olden days when 51 votes was a majority. Remember that?

The vote is expected to be close. The drama was pitched a while ago when CSPAN microphones could pick up the sirens outside – alerting everyone that VP Biden had arrived to preside over the votes. He could conceivably cast the deciding vote.

Collins and Brown were the two Republicans voting against the Hatch bill. Probably we should expect them to vote no on the Democratic bill as well.

Reid is reminding the Republicans of their Norquist pledge. I haven’t heard whether he granted Republicans special dispensation on this bill as he did with the payroll tax.

Second addendum: Harry Reid is mad. He said “poppycock.”

Third addendum: Brown and Lieberman, “no,” but some major bloggers are counting 51 votes for the bill, even without Biden’s help. Tester? Nelson?

Fourth addendum: Webb votes no, but it passes! 51 to 48!

Wow! The Democrats just did something! Pinch me!

If the Republicans block in at the House over the technicality, that will be the subject of Democratic Party ads from here to November, and it could deliver the House back to them. Otherwise, the Democrats just simultaneously maintained lower taxes for 98 percent and reduced the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars!

Give Reid credit where it’s due! He outplayed McConnell. Don’t know if the game was chess or poker, but it was played well!

25 comments

Because of the Constitutional requirement that all spending bills must “originate” in the House, the only way the Democratic version will actually becomes law is if the House puts this language into their own bill, passes it, sends it back to the Senate, the Republicans in the Senate agree not to filibuster it, and it gets another straight-majority vote in the Senate. Chances that the current Republican majority in the House, and the filibuster-wielding Republican minority in the Senate will allow that to happen? Pretty slim, in my opinion.

More likely the House Republicans will simply ignore the Democratic bill, pass their own bill that would extend all the Bush tax cuts again (including the upper-income tax cuts) and send that to the Senate, leaving the Democrats in the position of voting that down, or filibustering it, or passing it and leaving it to Obama to veto it — any of which will leave them locked in a stalemate with the House.

Eventually, of course, they will need to pass a budget, and they may need to raise the debt ceiling again at the same time, too — so unless one side or the other makes major gains in the November elections, we’re right back to the same old government shutdown / debt default brinksmanship scenario.

That will probably happen TRA. But that’s much more serious and elaborate gamesmanship than they should have played, and it will put them on the defensive in the narrative because if today’s debating is any indication they intend to hammer the Republicans on this until November. Right now there is a bill in place which would lower taxes. If it dies, it will be because the Republicans killed it. That’s much less theoretical than it would have been.

McConnell blew it by shooting off his mouth two weeks ago when he dared Reid to allow the straight up vote. Reid twisted some arms and called the bluff. McConnell was clearly rattled today, and was trying to actually explain that trying to explain that his intent to kill the bill procedurally after allowing the vote was “just politics.” That clip will probably be in the Democrats’ ads as well.

The Republicans left the building clearly shaken, and a lot of them are denying interviews tonight. It may have shifted the whole debate. No more will the media frame this actually existing passed bill as “Obama’s economic message.” It’s a tax cut. Pure and simple.

Oh, I agree that this was pretty good political maneuvering on the part of the Senate Democratic leadership, and I’m glad they did it.

But I wouldn’t count on the media to go along with the framing of the issue that you are hoping for. There has been, and will continue to be, two competing frames:

(1) The Democratic framing of the issue: “The Republicans are holding the middle class tax cut hostage to their demand for cutting taxes on the rich,” and

(2) The Republican framing of the issue: “The Democrats are holding the middle class tax cut hostage to their demand for raising taxes on ‘job creators’ and ‘small businesses.'”

The Republicans will send a bill through the House in support of extending all the tax cuts, including the middle class tax cuts, and their response to Democratic attacks will be quite simple: You say we are insisting on raising taxes on the middle class, but we’re not — here’s our bill that would lower those taxes, and the Democrats in the Senate (and President Obama) are blocking it.

Basically, I don’t think today’s action will make much difference in how the issue plays out in the media and in the minds of voters. I hope I’m wrong about that, and that it results in either forcing the Republicans to back down, or costs them their majority in the House…but I doubt either of those things will happen.

The difference being that there is now an actually-existing bill that does nothing but keep taxes for everybody lower. It’s a lot easier to say that you just didn’t want to vote for something because it doesn’t lower enough taxes than it is to say that you are going to kill a bill you can pass because it doesn’t lower enough taxes. The media is forced to represent it as a tax cut bill. They can elaborate as to why the Republicans are going to maneuver the way they do, but there will be much more pressure on them to just pass the tax cuts and press for more later. They’ll probably block it because they need their campaign donations, but it’s going to cost them votes.

I was surprised the Republicans allowed this, considering the polling on the issue (strong majorities of both parties and independents support the Dem version). They won’t be able to get back the House with Obama’s enthusiasm gap, but this won’t hurt.

Well I think different media outlets will vary quite a bit on how they portray this bill, and the debate in general. Obviously Fox News will call it a tax increase and MSNBC will call it a tax cut, and various partisan websites and other partisan media outlets will follow one line or the other.

But as far as how the other “mainstream” news sources (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, leading newspapers, etc) will describe the debate: My guess is that most of these outlets will opt for the so-called “balanced story” approach, where they just report what both sides are saying — something along the lines of “Democrats say it’s a tax cut for the middle class, but Republicans say it’s a tax increase on job creators and small business owners.”

Of course in reality, for most people (those whose incomes don’t exceed $250,000), it would actually amount to neither a tax cut NOR a tax increase for them — their taxes would just the same as they have been for a number of years now. It won’t be “your taxes are going down,” it will just be “your taxes aren’t actually going down, but at least they aren’t going up either, which they would have if all the Bush era tax cuts were allowed to expire.”

TRA – How is it going to be called a tax increase? The lack of any action could possibly be called a tax increase. But the bill itself does nothing to increase taxes. But maybe you’re right. That’s going to be a strain on the mainstream media, and even the partisan media. The overall strategy may be described as a tax increase. But the bill itself, that’s the beauty of passing it.

PJ – as reported in the main post. Collins and Brown voted no on the Hatch Bill, but Warren is probably going to use the no vote on the Dem bill against him.

If all the Bush tax cuts are extended, then nobody’s tax rates will go up or down compared to what they have been paying for a number of years now.

Under the Dem’s plan, tax rates will not go up, nor will they go down, for incomes under $250,000, but tax rates will go up on income over $250,000. So it doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch to refer to that as a “tax increase” — compared to the current rates, it is.

And I’m all in favor of that. I’m just pointing out that when your tax rates either stay the same or go up, it’s understandable that this may not be perceived as a “tax cut.”

The distinction between a “temporary” tax cut and a “permanent” tax cut is mostly just rhetorical, in that it’s always up to Congress to decide whether to change the rates in the future, regardless of whether the change in the tax rates was labeled “temporary” or “permanent,” (or not labeled either way) when it was passed. So, yes, that’s where this terminological uncertainty arises from.

If you compare the rates that would apply under the Dem’s plan to today’s tax rates, then it’s neither a tax cut nor a tax increase for income under $250,000, but it IS a tax increase on incomes over $250,000s (a very modest and reasonable one, in my opinion).

If you compare the Dem’s plan to the rates that were in place when Clinton left office, then it’s a tax cut, full stop.

It’s certainly accurate (if a bit cumbersome) to say that the Dem’s plan amounts to an “extension of the middle class tax cuts enacted under Bush.”

However, from a practical point of view, I suspect most people look at their taxes this way: If they are going up compared to last year, that’s a tax increase, if they’re going down compared to last year, that’s a “tax cut” and if they’re staying the same, they’re staying the same.

From that point of view, the Dem’s plan would mean that taxes would stay the same for most people, and would increase a bit on the wealthy. Which, if it somehow miraculously passed the House and the Senate Republicans didn’t filibuster it and it actually became law, would be great.

The Democratic plan is a tax cut extension for everyone. Even billionaires will get a break on their first $250,000 of income and Clinton rates on income over that. Given the poll results for several years now, I don’t see how that can turn out badly for Democrats no matter what sort of spin the GOP tries to put on it. Most people know they don’t make $250,000 and they know that if they made more than that they could afford to pay a little more in taxes.

“Forty-four Republicans (and one Democrat) voted for an alternative bill that would give wildly generous estate tax breaks to a few of the richest American heirs at a cost of $119 billion to the deficit.

And those 44 Republicans also voted to raise taxes on 13 million low- and moderate-income working families. Though it seems unbelievable on a day when Republicans tried to be so generous to their wealthiest contributors, they voted for a bill that would end the child tax credit for nine million families that make less than $13,300, costing some of the nation’s most struggling households $854 a year. Another four million families would be affected by the Republican vote to reduce both the earned income tax credit and the middle-class credit for college tuition.”

Again Joe posts his default response to any news about the body politic. Again Joe, we know you think it’s all bullshit, and there are some posters who agree with you. But don’t you get tired of typing the same stuff over and over again?

Hey Kirk you should talk. You post the same bullshit over and over again without any remorse. Since when does someone need your agreement to make a valid point? The only reason the people that do agree with me don’t post is that they don’t want to put up with your personal assaults. I certainly DO NOT see anything you write that counters what I write – just pointless personal accusations, which is standard fare when you know you’re in the wrong. My ultimate point made in all of this is your exposure as a wanton hypocrite. You’re actually no different than any “born again” believer. The jokes on you.

Contrary to simplistic the high school civic analysis that laws simply get passes, there actually is a big difference between legislation that has an expiration(temporary) and legislation that doesn’t. Temporary legislation requires action to retain its provisions.

Since a Senate minority or presidential veto can stop action, taking action is always politically more difficult than not taking action. Every bill must thntnative@gmail.comntread a complicated maze of special interests and deals, as well as positioning for impending elections. DoingNot A Native nothing and blaming the other side is politically much easier.

(Resend)
Contrary to the simplistic high school civic analysis that laws simply always get passed, there actually is a big difference between legislation that has an expiration(temporary) and legislation that doesn’t. Temporary legislation requires action to retain its provisions.

Since a Senate minority or presidential veto can stop action, taking action is always politically more difficult than not taking action. Every bill must thntread a complicated maze of special interests and deals, as well as positioning for impending elections. Doing nothing and blaming the other side is politically much easier

Yes, it is generally more difficult to pass a new law than it is to let a “temporary” measure expire by taking no action to renew it.

In cases where one party is strongly attached to renewing the law, and the other party would be perfectly content to let the law expire, then there are indeed both procedural and numerical advantages to the side that is willing to let the the law expire.

But in this case, it’s not just a question of the Republicans wanting the “temporary” tax cuts to continue and the Democrats being perfectly happy if they all expire (and therefore being able to take advantage of the factors that make it easier to block legislation than it is to advance legislation.

Unless the Democrats are willing to let the middle-class portion of the tax cuts expire (and it seems they aren’t) then they need to pass a new bill just as much as the Republican do.

It’s bad enough that the Republicans insist on preserving the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and are willing to hold the middle-class tax cuts hostage. But according to the NY Times editorial that PJ linked to above (thanks for posting that P.J.!), even if the Republicans got their way and extended all the Bush-era tax cuts, their bill would have, at the same time, increased the taxes of 13 million low and moderate-income taxpayers, by eliminating the child tax credit, reducing the earned-income tax credit, and ending the middle class college tuition tax credit.

Their justification for why eliminating those Obama-era tax credits wouldn’t constitute reneging on their precious no-tax-increases pledge? Well, they say, those tax credits were “temporary” ones, so letting them expire isn’t the same as raising taxes. But as the Times editorial points out, the Bush-era tax cuts were supposed to be temporary, too. And frankly I’m a bit surprised that the Republicans would be stupid enough to pass a bill that, without question, raised taxes on low and moderate-income taxpayers even as it protected tax cuts for the rich, completely undercutting their claims that they are all about keeping taxes low for everyone, not just their rich benefactors. Maybe it’s just another example of them reflexively defaulting to the “Obama Things Bad, Bush Things Good” mentality that so frequently seems to rule their decisions, often to their detriment

The Republicans don’t seem to have any sort of cogent explanation for why they consider ending the “temporary” Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy to be a tax increase, but eliminating the “temporary” Obama-era tax credits for low and moderate income families somehow isn’t.

Lucky for them, there has been (as far as I can tell) very little reporting about the low and moderate-income tax hikes that were part of the Republican’s bill.

Thanks for the TPM link, Eric. As usual, they provide a good overview of how things have developed up to this point, and solid analysis of where things seem to be headed.

I really hope that the Democrats will stand strong. As the NYT pointed out, if the Republican insist on holding the middle-class tax cuts hostage to their demand that the upper-income tax cuts be extended as well, the Democrats should “stand up to hostage-taking and let all the tax cuts expire on New Year’s Day, then reinstate those for the middle class.”

That seems like the key — the willingness to, if necessary, let the middle class tax cuts expire along with the upper-income ones, and then come back with a proposal to reinstate the middle-class tax cuts and force the Republicans to block that if they dare.